An Explosive Reaction to Glitter Bombing

In my recent column for the campus paper, the Minnesota Daily, I playfully tackled the issue of glitter bombing, the state’s most common form of precipitation this year, given the relatively warm winter. An explanation below:

Now if you’re unaware of what glitter bombing is, it’s the act of contesting someone else’s views that you consider intolerant by displaying your own intolerance toward…

Jail time is a bit much. I’m okay with the fine, though. My preferred method of dealing with it would be to have society look down on such acts with contempt and mockery. The problem is that these acts make the offenders feel like they’re speaking truth to power, and then the news media provides them their 15 minutes of glory to reinforce it. They should be laughed off for choosing such an infantile way of expressing themselves, because, as you said, “they lower themselves to a level of discounting their own intellectual and rhetorical abilities.”

Grow up, be an adult, and string together a series of cogent thoughts to rebut an argument. That’s what they should be told.

The reason they continue to do this to GOP figures is they know nothing severe will happen to them. The reason they don’t glitter-bomb, say, bikers is they know there’s a very real chance of getting the crap kicked out of them. The consequences have to be serious enough to get them to think twice before it will stop. Social disorder runs rampant in a society where citizens stand idly by waiting for the government authorities to address every last problem.

But now Huckabee’s wish has been granted, at least to some degree. Most people here would prefer activists just didn’t stoop to such childish levels, but it’s a reality for whatever reason, so does the punishment fit the crime? I’m just as outraged when these sorts of incidents go unpunished, but that was part of the fun of it all: getting worked up over their collective dismissal. So, also, did we just like calling it “a crime” until it actually became one? · · 2 hours ago

In my book, yes. I for one don’t want become blind by glitter specks getting in my eyeballs.

6 months in jail is probably about right. It is an assault — but it is more of an assault on the civil society. These are thugs — albeit fruity thugs who would wilt and start crying if they were slugged as they deserve in response.

TucsonSean: 6 months in jail is probably about right. It is an assault — but it is more of an assault on the civil society. These are thugs — albeit fruity thugs who would wilt and start crying if they were slugged as they deserve in response. · 1 hour ago

I’m with TucsonSean on this. It’s as much intimidation of civil society as it is an assault on an individual. Tolerance of this kind of thuggery invites more, and worse. The “broken window” theory applies here.

TucsonSean: 6 months in jail is probably about right. It is an assault — but it is more of an assault on the civil society. These are thugs — albeit fruity thugs who would wilt and start crying if they were slugged as they deserve in response. · 1 hour ago

I’m with TucsonSean on this. It’s as much intimidation of civil society as it is an assault on an individual. Tolerance of this kind of thuggery invites more, and worse. The “broken window” theory applies here.

· 23 minutes ago

Limestone has touched the real crime here but has not named it. This is terrorism plain and simple. “The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.” It is soft terrorism, but terrorism nevertheless. If this continues without consequences it will escalate to hard terrorism. That is simply the nature of things.

My Dad was an optometrist. The first thing that I thought of was, all you need is to get a piece of glitter in your eye and you could be looking at a serious medical/visual problem. Yeah, I’d say that a serious assault charge is not out of line with the possibility of blinding someone.

Tom Lindholtz: My Dad was an optometrist. The first thing that I thought of was, all you need is to get a piece of glitter in your eye and you could be looking at a serious medical/visual problem. Yeah, I’d say that a serious assault charge is not out of line with the possibility of blinding someone. · 0 minutes ago

No, you turn the microphone over to the bomber and ask him to explain himself. If the left wants to act childish, then put it on display for the entire world to see. Don’t waste the opportunity to allow a fool his ten seconds of fame.

The fine sounds insufficient. On the other hand the six months in jail seems inappropriate. Depending on how gay the activist is, jail time might be an incentive. Some kind of community service, such as cleaning up after OWS type demonstrations for example, would seem more appropriate. I suppose an suitable uniform to be worn while performing said community service would be over the top.

This is not a problem that requires state involveemeent. It’s political. The proper treatment for a glitter bombing or similar “statement” is what the British Medical Association calls “putting the boot in”. If the bomber can walk away under his own steam, the dosage was too small. Cf. Mrs. Murdock.